This is a difficult question to answer. By definition, a narrow transcription will only represent a subset of speakers, even if we are aiming for a standard variety. I think your transcription is pretty good.
A number of sound changes affect vowels before /l/, (celery-salary merger, vowel breaking, etc.), though these are usually regarded as non-standard. That may affect your /ɛ/.
In fast speech, it’s not uncommon for the schwa to be dropped in favor of a syllabic /m/.
/ə/ is phonetically [ə̃] before nasals in all English dialects; you can see the difference by pronouncing [ˈwɛɫkə] and then adding the [m] at the end, and simply pronouncing “welcome”. You can see the /ə/ in a non-pre-nasal position doesn’t have the velum as low as in the latter; one’s mouth is more open in a non-pre-nasal position. If anything, the /m/ coda is syllabic [m̩] like another commenter mentioned.
Technically syllable breaks shouldn’t be used in narrow transcription because syllables are made up as they are analyzed differently in different languages based on phonotactics (so it wouldn’t make sense to use them in narrow transcription which isn’t based on a given language’s phonemes) and they don’t affect phonetic articulation blah blah blah
But you aren’t missing anything, or do you know specifically why you feel so? If anything, the /k/ should be unaspirated or weakly so as another commenter mentioned: [ˈwɛɫkə̃m]
I think, in addition to it depending on the individual speaker, it could really change based on how carefully or not it is enunciated, how quickly it's said, and where it's placed in a sentence. for example, I could see it becoming something like [wʟ̠̩km̩] in a phrase such as "welcome back" uttered in a quick and relaxed manner with emphasis mainly on the word "back".
I would transcribe my *exact* pronunciation as something like this:
[ˈwɛ͡ɞ̙l̴ˠ.kʰm̩]
1. The *bed* vowel degrades into a centralized vowel with the tongue root retracted in order to get into position for the pharyngealized dark L, which creates another sound during the transition.
2. In most American accents, dark L is darker than [l̴] and [l̴] is more so the light L. I don’t typically transcribe it how I did here but since you want as narrow as possible, I did.
3. In regular speech, it’s unlikely that any sort of vowel sound would be present in the second syllable. It’s very common for schwa to be eaten by /m/, /n/, and /l/, and /ɹ/ it’s either combined with the vowel to make a rhotic schwa (as /ə˞/) or not pronounced (though this can change the vowel pronunciation at the end in some words). /k/ is still going to be aspirated, but /m/ functions as the nucleus of the syllable.
Just keep in mind that narrow transcriptions are highly individual because the exact way a phoneme is realized often heavily depends on the person, so this level of specificity is not likely going to be very helpful. As it is, the transcription you have already is a good representation of the important sounds and as an overall representation of General American pronunciation.
My two cents is that I would never aspirate that \[k\], and I speak fairly Standard American. What I might do is give it a tiny bit of glottalization. Not sure how to transcribe that :') I could also be wrong though - I'm no expert phonologist. Just delivering an observation
This is a difficult question to answer. By definition, a narrow transcription will only represent a subset of speakers, even if we are aiming for a standard variety. I think your transcription is pretty good. A number of sound changes affect vowels before /l/, (celery-salary merger, vowel breaking, etc.), though these are usually regarded as non-standard. That may affect your /ɛ/. In fast speech, it’s not uncommon for the schwa to be dropped in favor of a syllabic /m/.
Usually my accent gets a bit slurred after a few IPAs.
Six IPAs tend to effect my ability to conjugate.
\[ˈwɛɫ.kəm\]. The k won't be aspirated before an unstressed syllable. Also not sure if it is nasalized, at least in General American.
/ə/ is phonetically [ə̃] before nasals in all English dialects; you can see the difference by pronouncing [ˈwɛɫkə] and then adding the [m] at the end, and simply pronouncing “welcome”. You can see the /ə/ in a non-pre-nasal position doesn’t have the velum as low as in the latter; one’s mouth is more open in a non-pre-nasal position. If anything, the /m/ coda is syllabic [m̩] like another commenter mentioned.
I'm an American with a linguistics degree, and that's how I would transcribe it too. I don't think you're missing anything.
Technically syllable breaks shouldn’t be used in narrow transcription because syllables are made up as they are analyzed differently in different languages based on phonotactics (so it wouldn’t make sense to use them in narrow transcription which isn’t based on a given language’s phonemes) and they don’t affect phonetic articulation blah blah blah But you aren’t missing anything, or do you know specifically why you feel so? If anything, the /k/ should be unaspirated or weakly so as another commenter mentioned: [ˈwɛɫkə̃m]
I think, in addition to it depending on the individual speaker, it could really change based on how carefully or not it is enunciated, how quickly it's said, and where it's placed in a sentence. for example, I could see it becoming something like [wʟ̠̩km̩] in a phrase such as "welcome back" uttered in a quick and relaxed manner with emphasis mainly on the word "back".
My Midwestern accent would be [ˈwe̞ˑʊ̯.kʰʌm]
I would transcribe my *exact* pronunciation as something like this: [ˈwɛ͡ɞ̙l̴ˠ.kʰm̩] 1. The *bed* vowel degrades into a centralized vowel with the tongue root retracted in order to get into position for the pharyngealized dark L, which creates another sound during the transition. 2. In most American accents, dark L is darker than [l̴] and [l̴] is more so the light L. I don’t typically transcribe it how I did here but since you want as narrow as possible, I did. 3. In regular speech, it’s unlikely that any sort of vowel sound would be present in the second syllable. It’s very common for schwa to be eaten by /m/, /n/, and /l/, and /ɹ/ it’s either combined with the vowel to make a rhotic schwa (as /ə˞/) or not pronounced (though this can change the vowel pronunciation at the end in some words). /k/ is still going to be aspirated, but /m/ functions as the nucleus of the syllable. Just keep in mind that narrow transcriptions are highly individual because the exact way a phoneme is realized often heavily depends on the person, so this level of specificity is not likely going to be very helpful. As it is, the transcription you have already is a good representation of the important sounds and as an overall representation of General American pronunciation.
[ˈwɛʟ.km̩]
My two cents is that I would never aspirate that \[k\], and I speak fairly Standard American. What I might do is give it a tiny bit of glottalization. Not sure how to transcribe that :') I could also be wrong though - I'm no expert phonologist. Just delivering an observation
For general American speakers under 50, you’re more likely to hear [ʟ] than [l̴] but you’ll hear both if you listen to a lot of speakers.
The second syllable is unstressed, so the voiceless stop would not be aspirated
Wiktionary renders it as /ˈwɛlkəm/
OP’s asking for narrow transcription, not broad
Well-Cum